Congressional stalemate over renewable energy

Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year.

The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them.

The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts.

Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed.

The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.

House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money.

Problem is these “alternative” energy sources are 6 to 10 times more expensive then current energy sources.

That is not entirely correct. It always depends on the circumstances. Can solar power compete today with nuclear or coal powered plants that supply the base load for big metropolises? No. Can wind energy compete with a small natural gas plant in the middle of nowhere? Oftentimes yes.

When the DOE says that 20% of electricity can come from wind power, then that about the same percentage the US gets from natural gas today. Natural gas that can be used as a substitute for gasoline.

You always have to look at the whole system: Paying $1 more for electricity to save $2 on fuel is a good deal. The point is: You always have to look at the specific case. Just saying alternative energy in general is 6-10 more expensive than current sources is just so 20 years ago.

Hydro, wind, and geothermal all can supplement baseload power generation from coal, natural gas, and nuclear, but will not replace these primary sources for generating electricity within any reasonable timeframe. Solar and solar-thermal are in the same class, except that they are only operable for a few hours out of each day.

Of course, all of these secondary or renewable sources ought to be exploited appropriately. But that means that in the long run they need to pay their own way without subsidies and special treatment. ALL of their costs need to be considered. However, some startup costs might need an infusion of venture capital, particularly for R & D.

I think the best opportunities include new batteries; ultra-capacitors; geothermal plants, perhaps in and around Yellowstone, our American super-volcano; and bio-engineered algae and bacteria that could process waste, cellulose, and industrial CO2 to produce light liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

But Obama’s idea that redirecting Iraq war spending would have produced a solution by now is ludicrous. Invention is a creative process akin to having a baby, and making 9 women pregnant in order to finish the job in one month is not a strategy for success.

Hydro, wind, and geothermal all can supplement baseload power generation from coal, natural gas, and nuclear, but will not replace these primary sources for generating electricity within any reasonable timeframe.

That is true. And I'm not talking instantaneous replacement here. Coal and nuclear will have to supply the baseload for the foreseeable future. But 20% wind power over 20 years is exceptionally doable. Germany is at 14.2% renewable today (most of it is wind power), Denmark gets 18.5% of its electricity from wind.

Solar and solar-thermal are in the same class, except that they are only operable for a few hours out of each day.

That is not quite correct. Solar thermal is 24/7, if you use molten salt to get you through the night.

Of course, all of these secondary or renewable sources ought to be exploited appropriately. But that means that in the long run they need to pay their own way without subsidies and special treatment. ALL of their costs need to be considered. However, some startup costs might need an infusion of venture capital, particularly for R & D.

I couldn't agree more. I actually like nuclear: it's clean and safe. Energy from coal kills more people every year than nuclear in a decade. And I think nuclear energy has to play a vital role in securing the future of energy. However, I don't believe in silver bullets. Most likely to current rush to go nuclear will drive up uranium prices as well, and then you have to make the switch to breeder reactors, which are in turn more complicated and expensive.

So I think that in the long run renewables will be able to compete oftentimes. As you said: "ALL of their costs need to be considered." If 20% wind energy frees natural gas to be used in vehicles, that's money saved, and in turn less money sent to terrorist (Saudi Arabia) or fascist (Venezuela) states. But hey, smarter men than me say the same:

If we take the natural gas we’re using for electrical generation and move it to transportation, we can replace 38 percent of our foreign oil imports. And that, sports fans, is a real number. T. Boone Pickens

I think the best opportunities include new batteries; ultra-capacitors; geothermal plants, perhaps in and around Yellowstone, our American super-volcano; and bio-engineered algae and bacteria that could process waste, cellulose, and industrial CO2 to produce light liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

There are a lot of things one can do at home: geothermal heat pumps (see: Geothermal heat pump) and solar panels can heat your home without the need for oil. All you need is the electricity to power to pump / compressor. That is also oil that can go into transportation.

But Obama’s idea that redirecting Iraq war spending would have produced a solution by now is ludicrous. Invention is a creative process akin to having a baby, and making 9 women pregnant in order to finish the job in one month is not a strategy for success.

Yep. Any change can only be done in accordance with the market. Populist shenanigans like "windfall profit taxes" etc. ain't gonna work.

I believe that the transportation fuel of the future is virtually identical to the transportation fuel of today - a mixture of light liquid hydrocarbons. I do not believe we will find an alternative airplane fuel, given the space, weight, and safety requirements, and I do not see any real alternative for general surface transportation. The closest I have heard of is Butanol made from waste and cellulose, because it has more than 90% of the energy content of gasoline or diesel and will work in any proportion up to 100% in current engines without modifications. It is far better than ethanol as an oxygenate for RFG, and can be produced by a fermentation process.

Ethanol and Hydrogen are both boondoggles - a waste of money and resources, and a serious mistake on the part of Congress, the President, and the industry sycophants. Hydrogen works for the space shuttle, because cost is no object but MASS is critical. Also, they can expend an additional 30% of the fuel energy content to compress and liquefy the hydrogen at -400F. But it doesn’t scale down to anything smaller than a battleship, and makes no sense down here on the planet.

The -400F critical temperature of liquid H2 makes its use in surface transportation totally impractical - particularly since the same volume of gasoline contains 56% MORE hydrogen and almost FOUR TIMES the BTU’s! The very best, most expensive tanks for gaseous H2 can operate at 10,000 PSI, and hold only half the amount of liquid H2 in the same space.

Ethanol is now a proven disruptor of worldwide food supply, and while at low concentrations it can serve as an oxygenate replacement for MTBE to reduce TOXIC (as opposed to CO2) emissions, it is a net negative as a fuel.

We need better batteries for plug-in hybrids (with diesel generators.) We need to drastically improve our electric grid, along with adding more capacity - and along with that, perhaps we should electrify our long-haul rail routes, to cut out 4% to 5% of our current oil consumption. And if that works, perhaps we could figure out how to do the same for our interstate highways, and cut out an even larger chunk.

So I think we have some alternatives, but we need to stomp out the artificial limitations on maintaining our economic status, or we won’t have the resources to solve the problems.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.